Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% Tax Proposal Is a Great Start—But We Need to Abolish the Ultra-Rich

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Ultimately, finding an optimal tax rate for the super-rich is a moral and political issue as much as an economic one.

Last week, when 60 Minutes aired an interview with newly sworn-in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman New York congressperson caused an uproar with what, by Washington standards, seemed a rather immodest proposal. Asked whether an expansion of public investment in green technologies would require raising taxes, she cited history.

“You look at our tax rates back in the 60s… [and] on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent,” Ocasio-Cortez explained. Given that a 70 percent tax on the wealthy would be nearly double the current rate on top earners, CBS’s Anderson Cooper responded with disbelief. “What you are talking about…” he said, “is a radical agenda compared to the way politics is done now.”

Cooper was not the only one to express skepticism. While conservatives were predictably apoplectic, even ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, responsible for drafting the tax code, were incredulous. Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett described Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion as “a little over the top.” New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell dismissed it as “comical.”

In fact, Ocasio-Cortez’s comments represent good policymaking. Both looking abroad and in terms of the United States’ own history, there is strong evidence to support the benefits of higher taxes on the super-rich. But more than looking at her off-handed response as an actual proposal or a final policy goal, her comments should serve as an opening to a broader conversation.

Yes, we should be asking what is the optimal tax rate on the wealthy for an expansion of public investment in necessary goods and services. But we should also consider a more fundamental question: Do we really want to live in a society in which those at the top can make hundreds or even thousands of times as much money as those toiling at the bottom?

Taxing the rich is popular—and makes good economic sense

In the fallout from Ocasio-Cortez’s interview, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was quick to point out that her view of optimal tax rates was far from controversial.

A flight of prominent academics, including Nobel laureate Peter Diamond, whom Krugman describes as “arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance,” have concurred that a top tax rate of over 70 percent would be entirely reasonable. “Some put it higher,” Krugman noted. “Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates [the optimal rate for the top tax bracket] at more than 80 percent.”

America indeed long had tax rates on the rich that reached the levels Ocasio-Cortez proposed or higher, while the nation experienced massive economic expansion. In fact, she understated the rates from the past: For two decades after World War II, until 1964, the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket hovered around 91 percent.

For a married couple in 1960, that applied to income earned above $400,000, the equivalent of approximately $3 million today. Yet this was the period in which the United States economy boomed most dramatically, when college students could reliably expect both a new car and a home mortgage after graduation. The annual growth rate in GDP reached levels as high as 7 and 8 percent.

There are also international precedents to suggest that taxing the super-rich yields substantial public benefits. Sweden has taxes on high incomes comparable to Ocasio-Cortez’s 70 percent proposal, with current rates of economic growth and labor-force participation greater than in the United States. Before Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government cut taxes on the wealthy in the 1980s, the United Kingdom long maintained top rates in excess of 75 percent, with additional surcharges on investment income.

While, like in the United States, inequality has soared in Britain in recent decades (the tax rate on income earned above £150,000, or about $200,000, is now 45 percent) its history of higher rates was part of the broader arsenal of social-democratic policies aimed at making the country a more fair and just place for its residents. These include public hospitals accessible to all, just as primary and secondary schools are in the United States. They also include at least 28 days of guaranteed paid vacation for all workers.

In contrast, there is no economic consensus on the upside of cutting top tax rates. The historical evidence is unambiguous: Over the past 40 years, slashing taxes on the rich has had no discernable positive effect on investment or innovation. On the contrary, both have slowed.

“Right now the main economic puzzle in macroeconomics is that corporate profits are very, very high,” says Marshall Steinbaum, an economist and Research Director at the Roosevelt Institute. “At the same time, corporate investment and innovation [are] at all-time lows. Productivity growth is stagnant.” Despite repeatedly implementing the tax policy prescribed by right-wing thinkers, the United States has failed to reap the supposed benefits.

Part of the Republican counterattack on Ocasio-Cortez has involved attempting to scare the public with the idea that, under her plan, everybody’s income will be taxed at the same, higher level. But, as Ocasio-Cortez herself has repeatedly explained, that’s not how marginal rates work. Even for someone making $12 million per year, the 70 percent tax would only kick in on the last $2 million. Your first $10 million would be taxed at lower rates.

The idea of applying such a levy on the extreme income of the wealthy is also very popular. A recent Hill-HarrisX survey shows that 59 percent of registered voters support Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal of raising the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent—with 45 percent of Republican voters saying they favor the concept.

Toward a more equal society

Higher taxes on the rich could go a long way towards creating higher-quality public schools, free higher education, universal healthcare and a Green New Deal. According to the Washington Post, Ocasio-Cortez’s hike on the top tax bracket could generate $72 billion per year in revenue.

Some progressives—notably advocates of Modern Monetary Theory, a brand popularized by the economists Stephanie Kelton and L. Randall Wray—dispute the necessity of such funding. They argue the government need not be preoccupied with raising taxes, as it can comfortably borrow to stimulate the economy and make socially productive investments. But a higher tax on top earners is not just about generating revenue. Rather, taxes on the ultra-wealthy can be seen as goods in their own right, as tools for fighting runaway income inequality.

There is a surfeit of reasons for proactively combating inequality. Though economists debate the reasons for the effect, there iswidespreadconsensus that increasing inequality contributes to slower growth in the economy.

Inequality fuels negative public health outcomes, and, among psychologists, it is now considered a causal factor in aggregate rates of mental illnesses and personality disorders. It also fuels social distrust. Asked whether “most people can be trusted,” 60 to 65 percent in more equal countries agree, compared to 20 percent in more unequal societies. And a billionaire class risks turning democracy into oligarchy.

In this context, proposals for higher taxes on the super-rich—even those that would use the tax code to create a de facto maximum income—might have socially beneficial consequences that have little to do with government revenue.

High marginal rates can also change labor relations, altering business incentives and shifting bargaining dynamics in American workplaces. “We know the things that rich people do in order to be rich come at the expense of everybody else,” Steinbaum argues. He imagines a situation in which the tax code effectively capped the earnings of multi-millionaires: “In a labor-bargaining context,” Steinbaum says, “if the boss’s marginal tax rate is 100 percent, he’s going to care less about outsourcing labor, about squeezing workers, about doing everything that bosses do in order to squeeze a marginal dollar out of their workforce, or out of their supply chain, or out of any other economic stakeholder they deal with. So the point of the tax policy is to equalize bargaining power throughout the economy.”

While higher income taxes would help to address inequality, abolishing the ultra-rich altogether would require measures to address the vast concentrations of wealth that have already amassed.

“Ideally, we should be taxing wealth as well as income,” says J.W. Mason, an economist at John Jay College. “We do tax the wealth of middle class people—in the form of property taxes on people’s homes—but we don’t tax the wealth of the rich, which is more likely to be in a portfolio of financial assets. If you are super-rich, although you might pay taxes on capital gains or inheritance, you don’t pay any taxes on your financial assets simply by virtue of owing them,” Mason explains.

In contrast, he says, “France has a wealth tax that has existed since the French Revolution”—and indeed Emmanuel Macron's move to cut it was one of the factors that fueled the recent Yellow Vest protests.

“Concentration of wealth may be even more problematic than the concentration of income, in terms of the political power it gives you and what it does to perpetuate inequality from generation to generation,” Mason contends.

Ultimately, finding an optimal tax rate for the super-rich is a moral and political issue as much as an economic one. In a country where the influence of the billionaire class is posing an increasing challenge to democracy, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for restoring the kind of taxes that existed through America’s postwar boom should be seen as but a sensible starting point on the path to more far-reaching change.

Mark Engler is a writer based in Philadelphia and an editorial board member at Dissent. His latest book, written with Paul Engler, is entitled, This Is An Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-first Century (Nation Books). He can be reached via the website: http://www.DemocracyUprising.com.
Andrew Elrod is a graduate student in history at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Nancy Pelosi isn't all that impressed. Asked about the "Green New Deal" in an interview with Politico on Wednesday, Pelosi dropped this amazing bit of shade on it:"It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they're for it, right?"

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-07 13:01:21

But, of course. New ideas are scary. Find a safe place, crawl inside, pull the dirt in after yourself.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-27 20:45:13

That's a "no."

Posted by John Smith on 2019-01-27 19:16:24

So? Corporate Democrats are not leftists by any standard.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-22 10:32:37

The crony capitalist billionaire loves Democrats.

Posted by SSINTENSE on 2019-01-22 08:45:08

Until the US loses its global military advantage. Stupid idea

Posted by SSINTENSE on 2019-01-22 08:27:36

Most people that have millions and millions of dollars dont have that sitting in cash. That money is typically invested in buildings and other assets/investments that have the further effect of generating employment. If you have hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in liquid cash you are bleeding money. That or you just won the lottery and have no idea what you are doing.

Posted by SSINTENSE on 2019-01-22 08:26:10

Back in the 50's, you could write off everything under the sun. The actual tax rate was around what it is now when you average that in.

Psychologically, I don't see this working as proponents intend for it to work. Starting a business typically involves risking large chunks of life savings and years of comfort just to get profitable. Why would anyone want to go through that if the reward on the other end is just a life that is just marginally better than an employee's life?

Posted by SSINTENSE on 2019-01-22 08:25:06

When someone fills their living space with everything they get their hands on, until the place is too full to even navigate through, we recognize them as Hoarders and hopefully get them professional help. The same needs to be for those who want-have more monies than anyone would ever need to live a contented, sustainable and comfortable life on Earth. There's something inherently wrong with a person/people who need millions & millions of dollars. But such Hoarding has been culturally/socially normalized under the economic umbrella of Capitalism. But it is not normal! As with all addiction though, those addicted will have a list of self-justifications for their disease, and no amount of logic/reason can penetrate this, the greatest power in all the universe: human pride! You will likely read some of them within these comments and elsewhere, for this disease is now a pandemic. The incurable flaw of placing a numeric $ value on all things and people, is metastatic for our species.

Posted by PaulAndrewAnderson on 2019-01-21 16:33:20

How cute, he thinks I'm a Democrat.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-21 10:32:42

Yes, Jay. There's no age limit on greed, ignorance and stupidity. The Idiot Left democRat Party counts on that.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-21 09:49:19

Ta and good riddance ;-]

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:09:20

That the president is an idiot is not part of this argument, and I'd be happy to end it right here. If you want to have an actual discussion unhindered by Disqus's interface that's not designed for what really is a live chat, then hit me up.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:08:19

I have a better idea. Ta, troll.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:07:46

Seriously, take a flying (maneuver) at a rolling (pastry).

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:06:45

This is no debate. Urine idiot and the pee tapes aren't necessary to prove it.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:05:45

Srsly though let's move this private.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:05:28

What do you mean by traitor?

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:05:01

Some of us geezers too.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:04:29

Oh well, doesn't matter anymore. What I'm saying is that I just noticed it. Also, wanna move this debate to private? It's clogging up the comments section.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:04:26

Yes.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:03:56

I don't hide it.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:03:41

You verified it with that comment. Who am I to make unbased judgements?

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:03:05

You're losing sense here.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 21:02:02

Who told you? Perry Schizo or Noyd Phrenia?

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 21:00:11

Nvm. I said that before finding out that you're a prime follower of Karl here.

Now I'll reiterate, just as you have: people in different tax brackets exist

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:59:58

Yes, you did. When did I say otherwise? A traitor to the working class. The overwhelming majority of Americans are working class, but a good chunk of them are traitors. Et tu, Brute?

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 20:59:10

Found the commie!

Edit: Real Estate is a valid industry. What is your major malfunction?

Plus: traitor to what or who?

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:58:05

Just asking you to elaborate, bud.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:57:48

First of all, I have as much power in the matter as you do. You think I can just walk up to the Chinese embassy and say Hey China,停止排放我们所做的二氧化碳? I'm not saying and I have not said in any way that I'm superior--you planted that statement long ago.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:57:36

If you don't work for a living, you own for a living. If you side with the bourgeoisie, you are a traitor and need to be treated accordingly.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 20:55:05

That's true. Why are you letting it happen? I reiterate, if you are so superior to the rest of us, find another planet. I know I'd appreciate it.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 20:51:49

Textbook non sequitur.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 20:50:37

Sounds like somebody just learned a new term! I'm so proud you should use it even more often.

Not everybody here is part of the working class proletariat, so sorry to burst your bubble.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:49:46

At the rate we're going, nobody will even be on Earth to mind.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:46:15

"Back that with something. Anything. That's what I thought."

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 20:44:34

Find another planet. Nobody is gonna mind. You can trust me on that.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 19:01:01

Back that with something. Anything. That's what I thought.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 19:00:12

Personal experience of what? Being full of shit up to the eyeballs?

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 15:41:36

Yeah, with uncredentialled loonies doing the teaching.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 11:28:19

To the authors of this article: Please educate yourselves on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). You don't need to pay for things through redistribution. It can be paid for through simple spending. Unlike the cities and states, the federal government can never run out of money to pay for things. The federal government is a sovereign monopoly issuer of its own currency. It doesn't need to tax or borrow or sell bonds to "have the money". The federal government is the SOURCE of money. The issuance of money PRECEDES taxation.

Posted by AM on 2019-01-20 11:14:24

It pays not to confuse literature with reality.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 11:08:36

If it was me, I'd ban your ass.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 11:07:30

I know how to spell bullshit, thank you.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 11:06:56

I've read lots of 'em. Try it, you might like it.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-20 11:06:08

I hope you don't take the premise of this idiotic article seriously, right?Greedy leftist socialism has been tried, over and over - it ALWAYS creates misery and death.It's only because so many kids these days are totally ignorant of history that it's even mentioned.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-20 10:12:44

I don't reply with substance to those who reply with pillow stuffing. If you think how I type is amuuuuuuuusing and want to be entertained, read your own comments.

Ad Hominem:(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

You're a textbook case of both that that fallacy and the average subject of *drumroll*

r/iamverysmart

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-20 08:59:49

Whoopee ti yi yo, get along little dogiesIt's your misfortune ain't none of my ownWhoopee ti yi yo, get along little dogiesYou know that Wyoming will be your new home

Posted by fuster on 2019-01-20 02:26:13

is ITT the name of your cousin?

Posted by fuster on 2019-01-20 02:24:09

piffle.

Posted by fuster on 2019-01-19 21:29:29

My suggestion to the editors here is that they moderate the forum, hold the posts for 12 hrs or so. As anyone with an education can see here, 95% of the posts are absolute trollwork or HS dropout chat room trash. If that is what you want this publication to present in the comments of your articles great, I'll read elsewhere.

Posted by John Smith on 2019-01-19 20:27:34

You've read the book?

Posted by John Smith on 2019-01-19 20:23:55

If that was your defense you stand convicted.

Posted by John Smith on 2019-01-19 20:22:08

You may want to look up ad hominem, cuz you got it wrong. Most amusing is opening with "dude" and closing with please, as though there is anything of substance between those two tiring cliche forms.

Why can't they be funded by the states, who have the opportunity to try different things? How can DC people who could only get government jobs be so all-wise as to determine the ONE solution that will work ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE for EVERYBODY?

Government "schools" are excreting crap kids, thanks to the Feral Government and the Education-Industrial Complex of Useless Parasites.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 18:34:50

I only agree with the second paragraph because it's not only the left that's idiotic, it's most of the country and world. Common sense isn't so common anymore.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:32:12

Take magnet charter schools for example. They are funded by the DOE the same amount as public schools but manage it on their own and do much better.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:31:16

Why? Why send hundreds of billions to a pile of parasites in DC, then beg to get back 60% of it without a thousand pounds of idiotic rules attached?

Strangle the cashflow, Feral Government is the enemy now.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 18:29:03

Eh, it should be fixed, not burnt.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:28:02

You misspelled "alternative intelligent thought".

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 18:27:46

I hope she burns it to the ground. That monstrous pile of parasites educates nobody.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 18:26:56

Well, that's a start. Hopefully you're young enough to be able to learn more.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 18:26:25

And how exactly would you go about that?

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:22:18

I only agree with the second paragraph.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:20:25

Yep.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:18:42

I agree, coming from personal experience.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:18:24

Truth. The department of education is currently in shambles, especially with Betsy DeVos as head.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:17:09

It does not matter if he is socialist or not. Socialism is an easy way of having one person or party gain enough power to very quickly become totalitarian without much of anybody else noticing.

In fact, INGSOC rose to power from the shoulders of a socialist revolution.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 18:16:32

By 1919 LENIN had not seized Russia's wealth, and actually, never did.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-19 17:00:01

Orwell did not design any logo, but he did fight in the Spanish civil war with the militia of the Workers Party for Marxist Unity (POUM). Fact.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-19 16:54:53

ITT, you need to deal with the troll infestation.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-19 16:45:00

You're so full of it your blue eyes have to have turned brown. No billionaire has ever been a friend to leftists and no billionaire ever WILL be a friend of leftists.

Posted by Jay Hansen on 2019-01-19 16:42:52

since the ultra rich are mostly leftist, that is fine with me. Soros, Zuck, Steyer. Go get em.

Posted by Bobloblaw67 on 2019-01-19 14:30:27

Financial Equality can only be accomplished when everyone is equally poor. Venezuela has obtained Financial Equality, well except for the Rich that run the Nation and own everything in the Nation.

Posted by Kmat on 2019-01-19 14:25:16

Don't hold your breath waiting for leftist-infested government gulags to all of a sudden morph into "schools".

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 14:07:08

What we really need is good education in economics in high school so we can reduce the likelihood of socialist nincompoops serving in Congress.

Posted by Doug Sterling on 2019-01-19 14:05:46

I love "Miller's Crossing" and your avatar.RIP Jon Polito, a very good character actor.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 13:57:31

How about if you greedy, lazy, commie leftists start by stealing all of the assets of George Soros, Barky Odumbass and that balloonheaded huckster Algore - let's see how that goes first.

Are you so uneducated that you have no awareness of how many tens of millions of people have been murdered by those advocating totalitarian schemes like yours? Berniezuela is just the most-recent example.

These are not American values. This is not who we are. There's a reason it's called The Idiot Left.

MAGA, baby.

Posted by Brak Odumbass ✓Deplorable on 2019-01-19 13:56:00

thank you for the defense.

however, I'm far from a kid and long ago graduated from a rather good university's law school wherein I was taught a few things concerning law and justice, things that did change some of my views held during my undergrad days.

Posted by fuster on 2019-01-19 10:06:42

even the authors can supply no ethical grounds for confiscating wealth.

the closest that they come is the claim that the wealthy might exercise disproportionate political power through use of it.

but that is not reason for removing the wealth when the problem is the disproportionate sway.

in a just society we punish offenses against the public not possible offenses, and we don't lump the innocent with the guilty, and punish groups for offenses committed, or possibly committed, by individuals

Posted by fuster on 2019-01-19 10:02:27

Power is not a means, but an end.

-George Orwell, 1984

Be careful who you wish into power.

Take a look at the Democratic Socialists Party of America's logo and take a glance at INGSOC's logo. You'll find an uncanny resemblance, and if you examine closely, you'll figure out that something in the similarity is propaganda used in order to gain popularity and therefore power, a major part of which is collective.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:33:21

Really dude? Really? You're going to go off on a terribly misguided ad hominem on what even you take to be a kid?

Most people get smarter as they grow older, if they put in effort into doing so--pretty obvious. Viewpoints can change and morph, and I support Fuster for speaking up in order to open discussion, though you should encourage him to read and learn more instead of just narrow mindedly insulting him. All three of us live in a society protected by the first amendment. Though it doesn't seem like his viewpoint will change anytime soon, that is a good thing as long as he learns and understands why he stands where he stands. A sort of check and balance, if you really like those words.

Even though Fuster gave no support for what he said, respect him. He's also a human, you know, and right now you seem a little less human than him. Have some tact and do your idol AOC some justice by asking for elaboration and having an actual debate before you run off criticising someone's post history. Please.

Posted by ASRL on 2019-01-19 09:31:36

There are OF COURSE historical are philosophical precedents* for this sort of ideology and nowhere has it ever turned out to be preferable to well taxed & regulated "free" capitalism with all of it's troubles.

The totality of the thinking of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke & Hume was that the governments that they knew (Kings and Queens) should not have the power to take private property, that private property rights were liberal rights against totalitarian overreach.

During the German Civil War (or revolution) when the Marxists seized power in Bavaria in 1919 one of the first questions skeptical Lenin (watching from Russia) wanted answered by his followers to the West was, "Have you seized the private wealth and property?" This seems predictable, what a lot of people are not aware of is that Lenin used a Rolls Royce Silver for his private automobile (Stalin preferred expensive 12 cylinder Packards). Nowhere in history have the power hungry not been raging hypocrites, laying waste as they try to force people to conform to some utopian scheme for their own good.

*See Stephen Kotkin (2014) Stalin Paradoxes Of Power, 1878-1928

Posted by John Smith on 2019-01-19 08:18:57

Trollmaster Fuster (with the idiot's avatar image) still can't capitalize a sentence! Whoever trains these guys must have flunked out of grammar school. Make sure you click his name & read some of his body of work to clarify just what a lazy imbecile we have here barking orders and advice.

Posted by John Smith on 2019-01-19 07:58:26

really great gob of unreasonable stupidity by the two clods authoring this.there is neither ethical nor legal grounds for taking the money from the wealthy.

that some ashholes like the thought is far different from actual justification